exploring the ecology of establishing oak trees in urban
TRANSCRIPT
Cities and the Environment (CATE) Cities and the Environment (CATE)
Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 3
2021
Exploring the Ecology of Establishing Oak Trees in Urban Settings Exploring the Ecology of Establishing Oak Trees in Urban Settings
of the Northeast of the Northeast
Tierney Bocsi University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected]
Rick W. Harper University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected]
Paige S. Warren University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected]
Stephen DeStefano U. S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Bocsi, T., R. W. Harper, P. S. Warren, and S. DeStefano. Exploring the ecology of establishing oak trees in urban settings of the Northeast. Cities and the Environment XX: xxx–xxx.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Urban Resilience at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cities and the Environment (CATE) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Exploring the Ecology of Establishing Oak Trees in Urban Settings of the Exploring the Ecology of Establishing Oak Trees in Urban Settings of the Northeast Northeast
Urban forests notoriously lack diversity in the biological communities that inhabit them, from the age and species composition of street trees to wildlife populations. In reaction to invasions of nonnative insects and diseases as well as predicted response to climate change, an emerging number of community foresters and tree wardens are expanding their urban tree planting practices to include a broader assemblage of tree species. These include oaks, among other species able to tolerate and adapt to urban conditions. Oaks are potentially favorable in regions like the northeastern U.S., where they grow extensively in rural forests and demonstrate potential resistance to specific urban pests that have caused challenges for other historically popular and extensively planted street trees. Additionally, they are known to feature a number of wildlife benefits, and their ranges in the Northeast are predicted to expand under many future climate change forecast models. We examine the role of oaks in the urban environment through the lens of the urban forest diversity deficit, reviewing topics that include diversity recommendations, threats by nonnative insects and diseases, and the human-wildlife interface. The goal of this work is to encourage careful consideration of where and when to plant oak trees to help professionals address issues of uniformity, while achieving benefits for urban forest ecosystems and residents.
Keywords Keywords Diversity, habitat, invasive, pests, oak, urban wildlife
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Thank you to Victoria Wallace, Department of Extension, University of Connecticut for a pre-submission review. This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture – McIntire Stennis Project #25, Accession #1000762. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This article is available in Cities and the Environment (CATE): https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3
INTRODUCTION
As human populations continue to grow, so do the urban spaces in which they reside. The United
States Census Bureau (2010) reported that nearly 81% of the total U.S. population lives within
urban areas. In the conterminous U.S., urban areas increased from 2.5% (19.5 million ha) of U.S.
land area in 1990 to 3.1% (24.0 million ha) in 2000. If the growth pattern observed from 1990 to
2000 continues, urban land will occupy approximately 8.1% of U.S. land area by the year 2050.
It is estimated that tree cover comprises only 35% of these urban spaces (Nowak et al. 2013). In
addition to limiting the size and continuity of natural ecosystems, urban development also
homogenizes the landscape, creating an environment with lower biodiversity (Chase and Walsh
2006; Elmqvist et al. 2016; Marzluff 2001; McDonald et al. 2016; Shochat et al. 2010). Various
authors suggest that the transformation of Earth’s landscape through urbanization leads to
unintended consequences, namely invasion and extinction, proposing that these two processes
drive the homogenization of Earth’s biota (Aronson et al. 2014; Blair 2001; Gaertner et al. 2017;
McKinney 2006). Similar drivers may also be perceived in the managed urban forest. In this
case, “invasion” is the planting of nonnative ornamentals, and “extinction” is the supplanting of
some natives that do not fit conventional ideas of urban landscaping or that may be less likely to
succeed in harsh urban environments.
Largely due to degraded growing environments that are inhospitable to many species,
urban forests are often lacking in tree diversity, especially along streetscapes. While street trees
constitute only a fraction of a typical community’s canopy cover, they represent the frontline to
urban forests and are highly regarded for their public form and function (Dover and Massengale
2014; Eisenman 2016; Fernandes et al. 2019; Laurian 2019; Mouzon 2016; Seamans 2013). Data
from both Maryland and Massachusetts illustrate the dearth of diversity among street tree
populations in urban environments (Cumming et al. 2006). Maples (Acer spp.) are the most
common trees found along urban roadways, comprising upward of 38% and 49% of street trees
in Maryland and Massachusetts, respectively. When oak (Quercus spp.) populations are also
included, these two genera account for nearly two out of every three (64%) street trees in
Massachusetts. Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.) alone comprises 34% of the street tree
species in the state (Cumming et al. 2006). More recent research reflects similar patterns in other
parts of the Northeast, including New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where maples are
also found to be a dominant street tree genus (Cowett and Bassuk 2014; Cowett and Bassuk
2017; Cowett and Bassuk 2020). Cumming et al. (2006) posited that, based on the average size
of these maples, the trees were likely planted several decades ago, in response to the effects of
the invasive Dutch elm disease (DED, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Brasier) pathogen. Such a
response to urban reforestation has the potential to be highly problematic considering further
insect or disease outbreak. For example, the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora
glabripennis Motschulsky) is regarded as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive species (Dodds
and Orwig 2011). The genus Acer is a primary host for this invasive insect, which is known to
detrimentally affect at least six maple species (Cumming et al. 2006). Native to China and Korea,
ALB was first detected in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts in 2008 (Dodds and Orwig 2011;
Elton et al. 2020). Since then, the near monoculture of maples among Worcester's street trees has
precipitated the need to remove more than 35,000 urban trees to prevent further invasion in that
location (Quinn 2016).
1
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Exemplified by this vulnerability to pests, monocultural urban ecosystems may
experience a reduction in resistance and resilience to environmental change and disturbance. A
diversity of species with varying sensitivities to environmental conditions ultimately lends itself
to greater stability (Clapp et al. 2014). This is particularly important in urban areas, where
climate change is predicted to increase ecosystem risks from heat stress, storms, and extreme
precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea-
level rise, and storm surges (IPCC 2014). Diversity also offers the potential for the generation of
more ecological and economic benefits (Hooper et al. 2005). Services offered by ecosystems in
urban areas, comprised of street tree populations in part, include air filtration, microclimate
regulation, noise reduction, rainwater interception, and recreational and cultural values (Bolund
and Hunhammar 1999; Dwyer et al. 1992).
In the northeastern United States, a growing number of urban foresters are becoming
increasingly aware of urban forest uniformity (Doroski et al. 2020; Harper et al. 2017). They are
initiating management regimes that include intentional diversification of trees planted in urban
forests to prevent the loss of community tree populations to a single, devastating pest species (D.
Lefcourt, City of Cambridge, personal communication, 2016). In addition to expanding canopy
cover as a strategy for climate change mitigation, addressing the urban forest diversity deficit is
also recommended and implemented to increase resilience and adaptation (Barron et al. 2019;
Brandt et al. 2016; Ordóñez and Duinker 2014). Many urban foresters have placed increased
emphasis on adhering to designated maximum percent urban tree compositions (%) aimed at
substantially enhancing biodiversity. Santamour (1990) recommends that no more than 10% of a
species, 20% of a genus, and 30% of a botanical family comprise an urban forest. Ryan and
Bloniarz (2008) and Moll (1989) suggest no more than 10% of any one genus. Ball and Tyo
(2016) recommend no more than 5% of any one genus. Generally, most urban foresters suggest a
goal of no more than 5% to 15% of a species (Clapp et al. 2014; Cumming et al. 2006). When
examining the occurrence of street trees like maples in Massachusetts and Maryland, we see that
managers have not historically adhered to diversity recommendations.
In this review, we examine the presence and impact of oaks in the urban environment to
evaluate their role as street trees, since they are commonly and increasingly being used in urban
greening and diversification efforts. We explore literature that focuses on two of the major
implications of planting trees in human-dominated landscapes, with respect to diversity:
infestation by invasive insects and nonnative diseases in monoculture ecosystems, and the
attraction of wildlife to urban environments. These factors are especially pertinent to oaks, which
are valued for their resilience and urban forest benefits (Peper et al. 2007; Searle et al. 2012;
Sonti et al. 2019), including their potential to increase biodiversity by providing wildlife habitat
and food (Greco and Airola 2018; Wood and Esaian 2020). We consider the status (i.e., percent
composition) of oaks in urban forests currently and touch upon how their distributions are
expected to respond to future climate scenarios. Lastly, we use this information to provide
suggestions for urban forestry professionals (e.g., community foresters and tree wardens) about
where and when it may be appropriate to plant oak trees in their communities.
2
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
SOURCES FOR REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS
We searched peer-reviewed literature for information regarding general topics like urban
biodiversity, wildlife, and insects and diseases. Four books (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001;
Martin et al. 1951; McShea and Healy 2002; Tallamy 2009) were essential in gathering specific
ecological information for oaks, especially regarding these trees as resources for wildlife. We
reviewed other sources, including urban forestry trade journals, magazines, fact sheets, and
conference proceedings, for recent data regarding urban forest composition, as well as trends in
the field. Informal solicitation of information from urban forestry professionals also contributed
to our knowledge of current goals and management practices. City foresters, arborists, tree
wardens, and urban forestry faculty from Massachusetts and New York were contacted via e-
mail. We asked questions of these authorities regarding planting habits and considerations
related to oak trees in the urban environment and in response to invasive pest infestations. We
also requested professional opinion on tree selection and performance, specifically regarding
oaks, based on their anecdotal experience and street tree inventory data. Of the 14 urban forestry
professionals contacted, seven responded. We rendered four of these comments most useful to
cite within our work (see personal communications from Lefcourt, Bassuk, and Antonelli).
OAK TREES AND THEIR BENEFITS TO WILDLIFE
Oak trees offer an abundance of benefits to wildlife. They are an important food source, with
acorns rating at the top of the wildlife food list. Although acorns may not be preferred by many
species, they are abundantly available, particularly in the winter when other food items are scarce
(Martin et al. 1951). The storage of acorns as a future food resource for recovery during the
winter months is common in caching species, like squirrels and the acorn woodpecker
(Melanerpes formicivorus) (Hannon et al. 1987; Wauters et al. 2002). They are also important
for bears during hyperphagia in the fall (Noyce and Garshelis 2010). Oaks play a significant role
in shrub communities of the interior West, a region with limited food sources (McShea and
Healy 2002). In the east, oak trees have become increasingly significant for wildlife with the
decline of both American chestnut (Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.) and American beech
(Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) (McShea and Healy 2002). Several wildlife species are known to
consume acorns, from squirrels and other rodents to waterfowl and deer. Van Dersal (1940)
found that upward of 186 species of birds and mammals feed on oaks, while McShea and Healy
(2002) assert that the distribution of many species corresponds with or relies on the range of oak
trees. Martin et al. (1951) document 96 species known to consume acorns and estimate that
acorns comprise anywhere from 5% to 25% of most species’ diets.
In addition to acorn production, oak trees support wildlife species by providing cover and
nesting sites, as well as supplies for these habitat elements. They host dozens of cavity-nesting
bird species, including chickadees, bluebirds, woodpeckers, and owls (Tallamy 2009). In some
oak species, young trees retain their dried, dead leaves through winter. This phenomenon, known
as marcescence, provides thermal cover and protection from predators. Perhaps one of the most
notable yet underrated benefits of oaks is their significance to Lepidopteran species. The genus
Quercus supports more than 500 species of moths and butterflies, more than any other plant
genus (Tallamy and Shropshire 2009). In sustaining Lepidopteran species, oak trees add to the
food sources available to birds. Most importantly, oaks in the urban environment present natural
3
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
opportunities for food and cover. According to DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001), upward of 193
wildlife species use red oak (Quercus rubra L.) habitat in New England alone (Table 1). The
authors generated natural history accounts for each species that breeds, winters, or resides in
New England and created a species-habitat matrix to document relationships. They used 11
forest cover types that are predominant in New England to describe forest/wildlife habitat
associations. Red oak habitat also includes associate species black oak (Quercus velutina Lam.),
scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea Münchh.), and chestnut oak (Quercus montana Willd.), as well as
hickory (Carya spp.) and red maple (Acer rubrum L.). Of the 193 terrestrial vertebrates known to
use red oak habitat, 23 prefer these stands over other cover types (Table 1). While planting more
oaks in an urban setting would not provide the same degree of habit suitability available in
natural forest systems, there is an opportunity to support variable taxa with tree species that are
highly impactful for wildlife. Single street trees are less likely to achieve the high levels of
biodiversity that natural systems support, but they may serve as corridors between urban parks,
which could generate many of the same benefits (Angold et al. 2006; Fernández‐Juricic 2000,
Mahan and O’Connell 2005, Nielsen et al. 2014, Wood and Esaian 2020).
Table 1. Taxa (number of species) that utilize Q. rubra habitat in New England. GU = general
use; PB = preferred breeding habitat; PNB = preferred nonbreeding habitat. (Adapted from
DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001.)
Total GU PB PNB PB & PNB
Amphibians 15 13 2 0 0
Reptiles 16 15 1 0 0
Birds 114 101 12 3 2
Mammals 48 41 6 6 5
OAK TREES AND HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS
A variety of ecological effects may result from increasing the presence of oak trees in the urban
environment, particularly regarding wildlife. Many wildlife species rely heavily on oaks for food
and cover in rural forests (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; Martin et al. 1951; Tallamy and
Shropshire 2009; Tietje et al. 2005), but this is also true for wildlife in urban areas (Clatterbuck
and Harper 1999; Conniff 2014: Longcore and Rich 2003). For example, caching species like
jays and squirrels, which depend on acorn production and directly influence oak dispersal (Logan
2005; McShea and Healy 2002), can become prolific in the built environment as urban adapters
(Bateman and Fleming 2014; Engels and Sexton 1994; Minor and Urban 2010). Since many
Lepidopteran species require oak hosts, pollination and pollinator biodiversity as well as
conservation can benefit from increased presence of trees within this genus (Hall et al. 2017;
Hausmann et al. 2015; Somme et al. 2016). Residents may also benefit from access to nature and
increased biodiversity in the built landscape (McKinney et al. 2018; Southon et al. 2017;
Southon et al. 2018). Surveys indicate urban residents enjoy and value wildlife, especially birds
4
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
(Belaire 2015; Clergeau et al. 2001; Kretser et al. 2009; Shaw et al. 1985). Research has further
demonstrated that residents are specifically interested in attracting wildlife to their backyards and
that they gain personal satisfaction from feeding wildlife (Gilbert 1982; Horvath and Roelans
1999; Ishigame and Baxter 2007; Jones 2011).
Despite the many wildlife-related benefits offered by oak trees, it is important to consider
their potential disadvantages, especially from the human dimension standpoint. There are
certainly costs that may be perceived concerning urban wildlife. Negative perceptions of urban
wildlife are often attributed to species for their numbers or for potential threats that they pose to
people and property. Generally, these include damage to plants and structures, droppings, threats
to pets, annoyance to humans, animal bites, and transmission of disease (DeStefano and DeGraaf
2003; Nowak and Dwyer 2000). Thus, public attitudes are largely influenced by the types of
contact and experiences residents have with urban wildlife (Conover 1997). Urban wildlife that
are frequently dubbed problematic include small and large mammals (Clark 1994; Kilpatrick and
Walter 1997), especially carnivores (Beckmann et al. 2004; Timm and Baker 2007). Where these
species create conflict, measures to avoid, deter, or even remove them are often instituted
(Hadidian 2015).
The concept of “wildlife acceptance capacity” (WAC) factors heavily into human
perceptions of wildlife. Decker and Purdy (1988) defined WAC as the maximum wildlife
population level in an area that is acceptable to people. There can be significant variation in
WAC among different individuals or stakeholder groups, and tolerance may change through time
(Goodale et al. 2015; Organ and Ellingwood 2000). WAC is strongly influenced by how people
perceive risks associated with wildlife, such as threats to health and safety (Decker et al. 2002).
Increasing oak trees in the urban environment could potentially exacerbate human-
wildlife conflict if doing so contributes to meeting or exceeding the WAC for a species. As
previously described, many wildlife species rely on the acorns dropped by oaks as a staple of
their diet (Martin et al. 1951). Some of these species, such as deer and small mammals, are
considered a nuisance when they occur in high densities. Planting more oaks could increase the
abundance of wildlife species that consume acorns, thereby approaching or exceeding the WAC
for these species. Similarly, with expanded populations of prey species, there may be opportunity
for an increase in predator populations as their food sources become more abundant. For
example, coyotes (Canis latrans Say), which commonly utilize urban areas (Grinder and
Krausman 2001), feed on small mammals, whose distribution would likely be affected by oak
trees. More importantly, the coyote is known as a nuisance species, occasionally posing threats
to humans and their pets (Bateman and Fleming 2012).
When examining the possible ramifications of oak trees in the urban environment, an
important relationship evidently exists between oak mast, small mammals, insect vectors, and
Lyme disease, caused by Borrelia burgdorferi (Jones, et al. 1998; Ostfeld et al. 1996; Ostfeld et
al. 1998). Both the population numbers and behavioral habits of white-footed mice (Peromyscus
leucopus Rafinesque) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) are strongly
influenced by acorn production, with mast years yielding increased numbers of both species
within oak stands. Mouse densities tend to increase following mast production, while deer
respond to mast years by foraging in forests dominated by oaks over other stand types (Clotfelter
et al. 2007; McShea and Schwede 1993). Of the species known to host larval deer ticks (Ixodes
scapularis Say), scientists have concluded that the white-footed mouse is the host most likely to
5
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
transmit the Lyme disease bacterium (Jones et al. 1998; Kelly et al. 2008; Kremen and Ostfeld
2005). White-tailed deer are notorious for harboring adult deer ticks, which are ungulate
specialists (Huang et al. 2019; McShea and Schwede 1993; Ostfeld et al. 1996). Consequently,
the location of deer in the fall determines where larval deer ticks, produced by adult deer ticks,
occur in the landscape. This causes heavy concentrations of larval ticks in forests dominated by
oak trees during mast years, when deer exploit the abundance of acorns. As a result, larval ticks
co-occur in time and space with white-footed mice, increasing the likelihood for transmission of
Lyme disease (Ostfeld et al. 1998). Complexities to this dynamic relationship are introduced
when land use and human behavior are considered. Increasing development and incidents of
Lyme disease, especially in the Northeast (Rosenberg et al. 2018), pose risks to human health,
with recent research indicating that threats are not restricted to suburban and natural settings
(Jobe et al. 2007; VanAcker et al. 2019). These findings suggest that caution should be exhibited
in urban green space and residential landscape design (Jackson et al. 2006; VanAcker et al.
2019).
PLANTING OAK TREES AS A RESPONSE TO INVASIVE INSECTS
Invasive insect pests have the capacity to cause wide-scale disturbance and destruction in natural
and urban ecosystems (Dampier et al. 2015, Gandhi and Herms 2010; Heleno et al. 2009; Kenis
et al. 2008). Many native tree species abundant in Northeast forests and historically preferred as
street trees have experienced significant decline due to nonnative insect invasions. While oaks
are not pest-free, there are far fewer accounts of such largescale, dramatic losses to invasive
insects compared to other landscape trees. For example, the emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus
planipennis Fairmaire), an introduced pest from Asia, has killed tens of millions of ash trees in
rural and urban areas throughout the range of ash tress (Fraxinus spp.) in North America
(McCullough et al. 2015). In southeastern Michigan, it has caused virtually 100% mortality of
ash species (Gandhi et al. 2008). In addition to ecological ramifications, infestations at this scale
are also damaging to the economy. Based on stumpage value alone, loss of the ash resource in
Michigan is projected to exceed $1.7 billion (Poland and McCullough 2006). EAB is but one of
many non-native pests to negatively affect ecosystems and economies in the U.S.
Considered one of the most destructive wood borers to invade the region in recent years,
ALB is native to China and Korea (Haack et al. 2010; Hu et al. 2009). The pest was first detected
in the U.S. during 1996, where it was introduced to New York City. Most recently, it has been
found in central and eastern Massachusetts, namely the city of Worcester (Childs 2016a).
Susceptible tree species include – but are not limited to – maple, horse chestnut (Aesculus spp.),
birch (Betula spp.), ash, poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and elm (Ulmus spp.). ALB
infests healthy host plants and proceeds to actively feed and move throughout the tree via
extensive larval tunneling. In as little as one or two years, repeated attacks in the vascular tissue
and structural weakness can lead to host death (Childs 2016a; Haack et al. 2010); however,
plants may live substantially longer. Specifically, the beetle targets sugar maple (Acer saccharum
Marsh.), red maple, and Norway maple. This is particularly problematic in a region like New
England, where both sugar maple and red maple are prominent hardwood species, and where
Norway maple was extensively planted in urban settings, not only in response to the devastating
effects associated with DED, but also for its structural resistance to failure under intense weather
events (Elton et al. 2020; Shatz et al. 2013).
6
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
While oaks appear to be plausible alternatives to planting more maples, since they are
potentially unsuitable hosts for ALB (Raupp et al. 2006), the genus is not immune to infestation
from invasive insects. Following accidental introduction to Massachusetts in the 1860s, the
gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) has spread throughout the Northeast, where it causes
considerable damage to numerous tree species, but especially oak stands in New England (Childs
2016b; Gandhi and Herms 2010). Gypsy moth defoliation has both direct and indirect, as well as
short- and long-term, implications for oak communities. In addition to tree decline and mortality,
wide scale defoliation can cause changes in light, temperature, and moisture regimes, along with
the alteration of nutrient cycles (Gandhi and Herms 2010). Other ecological consequences
include stand patchiness, sporadic masting, and modifications in successional patterns and
watershed characteristics. Impacts such as these have the potential to consequently affect wildlife
distribution patterns (Foss and Rieske 2003). Stress from gypsy moth defoliation also impacts
acorn production, resulting in the decrease or elimination of this important wildlife food source
(Gandhi and Herms 2010). In addition to ravaging Northeast forests, high numbers of gypsy
moth are even more problematic in urban settings, where urticating hairs and frass production
cause human health concerns (Foss and Rieske 2003).
The likelihood of gypsy moth outbreaks depends to some extent on oak mast. Mast years
occur every 2 to 5 years, resulting in large acorn crops. Acorns are a dominant dietary
component for white-footed mice, which are important predators of gypsy moth pupae. In years
between oak mast, mouse densities are reduced, yielding increased numbers of gypsy moth and
initiating potential for outbreaks of this invasive pest (Jones et al. 1998). Some research and
anecdotal evidence indicate that gypsy moth caterpillars prefer white oak (Quercus alba L.) over
other species of the genus, with variation in results and location (Foss and Rieske 2003;
Kauffman and Clatterbuck 2006; Lance 1983; Santamour 1990). It is likely that a combination of
foliar characteristics influences oak susceptibility to infestation (Foss and Rieske 2003).
PLANTING OAK TREES AS A RESPONSE TO INVASIVE PATHOGENS
In addition to insects of importance, tree populations may also succumb to invasive pathogens,
which can have similarly detrimental effects (Loo 2008; Lovett et al. 2006). This is especially
true in the urban environment, where low levels of diversity in the urban forest limit resiliency to
the spread of insects and disease. A classic example of this involves the renowned American elm
(Ulmus americana L.). Dutch elm disease, which was introduced from Europe on shipments of
unpeeled veneer logs, is regarded as one of the most devastating shade tree diseases in the U.S.
The fungal pathogen that causes DED is transported by elm bark beetles and transmitted by root
grafts, resulting in tree wilting, as well as yellowing and browning of leaves. Following
infection, these symptoms continue throughout the tree’s crown, resulting in eventual host-plant
death (Brazee 2017; Swingle et al. 1949). Dutch elm disease was first detected in 1930 and
spread nationwide by 1977, decimating populations of elm, a fast-growing, stress-tolerant
hardwood species that once prolifically lined streets, parks, and landscapes throughout North
American communities (Schlarbaum et al. 1998).
Similarly, chestnut blight, caused by Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr, is a fungal
disease that pervaded eastern hardwood forests at a rate of 24 miles per year (Schlarbaum et al.
1998). Cankers from the disease were sighted in New York City in 1904 (Anagnostakis 2001).
7
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
First detected on shade trees, chestnut blight contaminated nearly all adult chestnut trees by the
1950s (Anagnostakis 1987; Schlarbaum et al. 1998). Like the elms, the chestnut fell from its
former status as a major component of eastern hardwood forests in the U.S. Consequently,
wildlife species were dramatically impacted with the loss of this significant mast crop, placing
more reliance on other food sources, like acorns. While oak trees in the Northeast are essentially
unaffected by DED and chestnut blight, the risk of infection from other pathogens of importance
remains.
Oak wilt, caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt, is a serious
pathogen relative to oaks. First discovered in Wisconsin during 1942, it has since caused the
dramatic and rapid death of red oak throughout parts of the mid-west and in many western states.
In Wisconsin (Juzwik et al. 2008), localized areas of the state have experienced loss of more than
50% of oak populations (Rexrode and Brown 1983) due to the presence of this pathogen. In the
Northeast, oak wilt threatens oak trees constituting the oak-hickory forest types (Juzwik et al.
2008). Infection is indicated by sudden wilting and death of host tree foliage and may sometimes
manifest as fungal mats that form below the bark. The disease is most prominently dispersed
through root grafts but may be vectored by insects, namely sap-feeding beetles (Family
Nitidulidae) and bark beetles (Family Curculionidae) that carry fungal spores to new hosts
(EPPO 2001; Rexrode and Brown 1983).
The origin of oak wilt is unknown, though it is suspected that native populations of the
pathogen may be found in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America (Juzwik et al.
2008). In the U.S., oak wilt ranges from the mid-west, south to Texas, and east to Pennsylvania,
with localized detections in New York (Munck 2017). Red oak (Erythrobalanus) species can
succumb within weeks of infection and are more susceptible than white oak (Leucobalanus)
species, which may take several years to experience mortality (Juzwik et al. 2008; Munck 2017;
Santamour 1990). Though oak wilt is likely a greater threat to rural forests outside of the region,
potential range expansion of oak wilt, along with differences in oak species resistance, have
direct implications for urban forests in the Northeast. With pest and disease outbreaks potentially
on the horizon, careful thought to the selection of less-susceptible oaks planted with
consideration for street tree diversity can help to maintain an urban forest that is more robust to
invasion.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Along with resistance to specific urban pests, oak trees in the Northeast are anticipated to fair
well under future climate change forecast models, where forest range types shift increasingly
northward (Bradley and Harper 2014; Iverson et al. 2008a). As global temperatures continue to
rise, oaks adapted to more southerly climates could exhibit tolerance and even expansion under
warmer conditions. A comparison of climate change scenarios and resulting suitable habitat
indicated that the oak-hickory forest type is expected to expand north, especially under higher
emissions scenarios. Coniferous forests of the Northeast and the maple-birch-beech (Fagus spp.)
forest type, in contrast, are predicted to contract (Iverson et al. 2008b).
Planting southerly oak species in specific locales of the Northeast could assist the
migration of species northward (Williams and Dumroese 2013), giving them a head start in
8
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
anticipation of shifting weather patterns and an extended growing season. This seems to be on
the radar for some urban forestry professionals. In the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, more
trees from the Mid-Atlantic area, especially oaks, are being selected and installed due to the
current and future impacts of climate change. The hope is that these trees are more resilient to
drought conditions experienced during the summer months but can survive through harsh winter
conditions as well (D. Lefcourt, City of Cambridge, personal communication, 2021). It is
important to note that insect and pathogen pressure is likely to increase with climatic warming
(Iverson et al. 2008b; Vose et al. 2012, Yang 2009), though it is unknown to what extent oaks
will be affected as southern species move north.
CONCLUSIONS
In the context of diversity, invasion susceptibility, and wildlife in urban environments, oak trees
have the potential to improve the urban forest. Urban forests infamously lack biodiversity,
especially regarding street tree genera, where near monocultures threaten the health and
resilience of urban tree populations plagued by diversity deficits (Galvin 1999). While some city
departments and foresters still strive to find what Bassuk (1990) refers to as the ‘perfect urban
tree,’ many urban foresters have started to recognize the importance of increasing the diversity of
the trees that they select for planting (Raupp et al. 2006). One of the main drivers behind this
recent management strategy shift in the northeastern U.S. has been in relation to the catastrophic
loss of trees from exotic insect and disease infestations, including ALB, EAB and DED. Oak
trees are not known hosts to these high-profile insect or disease pests, making them especially
favored candidates for urban tree planting efforts (Haack et al. 1997; N. Bassuk, Cornell
University, personal communication, 2015; Raupp et al. 2006).
While increasing oak trees may appear advantageous in some scenarios, there are
drawbacks to consider. We have indicated that augmentation of oaks in the urban environment
may become less desirable if wildlife populations demonstrably increase and exceed acceptable
citizen thresholds. Acorns can also cause oaks to be viewed negatively in situations where they
cause direct discomfort to urban residents. During mast years, mature oak trees are notoriously
associated with a “messiness” caused by heavy acorn production, where sidewalk conditions
have been compared to walking on ball bearings. The potential for increased prevalence of
zoonotic diseases and susceptibility to gypsy moth infestation, as well as the threat of infestation
from the lethal oak wilt pathogen, are also important factors to consider. With these possible
ramifications in mind, we might be wary of creating another monoculture situation if aiming to
improve diversity with species from this genus. For example, though not evenly distributed
statewide, an average of 15% of Massachusetts street trees are comprised of oaks (Cumming et
al. 2006). Furthermore, we see that oaks represent 22% of trees replanted in response to ALB
invasion in the city of Worcester (R. C. Antonelli, City of Worcester, personal communication,
2016).
Based on the details of our synthesis, we suggest that planting oak trees will have the
greatest positive impact in specific communities where the genus is not overly-represented (i.e.,
does not already exceed 10%–20%) in the local street tree population. Expansion of oak
populations in urban forests might be considered carefully, and perhaps avoided, in communities
where there are concerns for infestation by gypsy moth, oak wilt infection, and/or perhaps even
9
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
the transmission of tickborne disease. Species-specific planting decisions may help to mitigate
potential effects of pests and pathogens, as well as wildlife. In anticipation of human-wildlife
conflict or negative reactions to acorn abundance in residential areas, oak species that are
particularly attractive to wildlife could be planted along the outskirts of urban centers or
carefully incorporated into urban parks. This may help mitigate some of the issues surrounding
oak mast. Residents may be notified that, during mast years, there will likely be increased
abundance of mammals and possibly tickborne diseases. During intervening years, when acorn
production is minimal, threats to invasion by gypsy moth might be expected. Finally, the use of
oak trees in efforts to promote urban forest diversity offers the potential for increasing urban
forest resilience as climate change progresses. It is ever important to reiterate the urban forestry
mantra “right tree, right place” when considering which species to plant, as suitability,
adaptability, and potential liabilities exist with each management decision.
LITERATURE CITED
Anagnostakis, S. L. 1987. Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen.
Mycologia 79: 23–37.
Anagnostakis, S. L. 2001. The effect of multiple importations of pests and pathogens on a native
tree. Biological Invasions 3: 245–254.
Angold, P. G., J. P. Sadler, M. O. Hill, A. Pullin, S. Rushton, K. Austin, E. Small, B. Wood, R.
Wadsworth, R. Sanderson, and K. Thompson. 2006. Biodiversity in urban habitat
patches. Science of the Total Environment 360: 196–204.
Aronson, M. F. J., F. A. La Sorte, C. H. Nilon, M. Katti, M. A. Goddard, C. A. Lepczyk, P. S.
Warren, N. S. G. Williams, S. Cilliers, B. Clarkson, C. Dobbs, R. Dolan, M. Hedblom, S.
Klotz, J. L. Kooijmans, I. Kühn, I. MacGregor-Fors, M. McDonnell, U. Mörtberg, P.
Pyšek, S. Siebert, J. Sushinsky, P. Werner, and M. Winter. 2014. A global analysis of the
impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20133330.
Ball, J., and S. Tyo. 2016. Diversity of the urban forest: We need more genera, not species.
Arborist News 25: 48–53.
Barron, S., S. Nitoslawski, K. L. Wolf, A. Woo, E. Desautels, and S. R. J. Sheppard. 2019.
Greening blocks: A conceptual typology of practical design interventions to integrate
health and climate resilience co-benefits. International journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 16: 4241.
Bassuk, N. L. 1990. Street tree diversity making better choices for the urban landscape. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance
(METRIA), The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, 8-10 Apr 1997. METRIA: 71–78.
Bateman, P. W., and P. A. Fleming. 2012. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments.
Journal of Zoology 287: 1–23.
10
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
Bateman, P. W., and P. A. Fleming. 2014. Does human pedestrian behaviour influence risk
assessment in a successful mammal urban adapter? Journal of Zooling 294: 93–98.
Beckmann, J. P., C. W. Lackey, and J. Berger. 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs
to alter behavior of "nuisance" black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1141–1146.
Belaire, J. A., L. M. Westphal, C. J. Whelan, and E. S. Minor. 2015. Urban residents' perceptions
of birds in the neighborhood: biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices.
The Condor 117: 192–202.
Blair, R. B. 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the U.S. Pages
33–56 in: Lockwood, J. L., and M. L. McKinney (Eds.), Biotic homogenization. New
York, NY: Kluwer Academia/Plenum Publishers.
Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics
29: 291–301.
Bradley, B., and R. W. Harper. 2014. Can community forests in the Northeastern U.S. keep pace
with a changing climate? Arborist News 23: 44–47.
Brandt, L., A. D. Lewis, R. Fahey, L. Scott, L. Darling, and C. Swanston. 2016. A framework for
adapting urban forests to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy 66: 393–
402.
Brazee, N. 2017. Fact sheets: Dutch elm disease. Center for Agriculture, Food and the
Environment, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from
https://ag.umass.edu/landscape/fact-sheets/dutch-elm-disease. Accessed Nov 2018.
Chase, J. F., and J. J. Walsh. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landscape and
Urban Planning 74: 46–69.
Childs, R. 2016a. Fact sheet: Asian longhorned beetle. Center for Agriculture, Food and the
Environment, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from
https://ag.umass.edu/landscape/fact-sheets/asian-longhorned-beetle. Accessed Nov 2018.
Childs, R. 2016b. Fact sheet: Gypsy moth. Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment,
University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from
https://ag.umass.edu/landscape/fact-sheets/gypsy-moth. Accessed Nov 2018.
Clapp, J. C., H. Dennis, P. Ryan III, R. W. Harper, and D. V. Bloniarz. 2014. Rationale for the
increased use of conifers as functional green infrastructure: a literature review and
synthesis. Arboricultural Journal 36: 161–178.
Clark, K. D. 1994. Managing raccoons, skunks, and opossums in urban settings. In: Halverson,
W. S., and A. C. Crabb (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Vertebrate Pest Conference, The
Westin Hotel, Santa Clara, CA, 28 Feb 1994. University of California, Davis: 317–319.
Clatterbuck, W. K., and C. Harper. 1999. Urban trees for wildlife. The University of Tennessee
Agricultural Extension Service, R12-4910-17-001-00 SP530-15M-3/99.
11
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Clergeau, P., G. Mennechez, A. Sauvage, and A. Lemoine. 2001. Human perception and
appreciation of birds: A motivation for wildlife conservation in urban environments of
France. Pages 69–88 in: Marzluff, J. M., R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly (Eds.), Avian
ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Boston, MA: Springer.
Clotfelter, E. D., A. B. Pedersen, J. A. Cranford, N. Ram, E. A. Snajdr, V. Nolan Jr., and E. D.
Ketterson. 2007. Acorn mast drives long-term dynamics of rodent and songbird
populations. Oecologia 154: 493–503.
Conniff, R. 2014. Urban nature: how to foster biodiversity in world’s cities. Yale Environment
360, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Accessed 09 May 2019.
Conover, M. R. 1997. Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States:
practices, perceptions, costs, and values. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 306–311.
Cowett, F. D., and N. L. Bassuk. 2014. Statewide assessment of street trees in New York State,
USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13: 213–220.
Cowett, F. D., and N. L. Bassuk. 2017. Street tree diversity in three northeastern U.S. states.
Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 43:1–14.
Cowett, F. D., and N. L. Bassuk. 2020. Street tree diversity in Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 46: 27–43.
Cumming, A. B., D. B. Twardus, and W. D. Smith. 2006. National forest health monitoring
program: Maryland and Massachusetts street tree monitoring pilot projects. Newtown
Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
Dampier, J. E. E., R. W. Harper, L. Schwartzberg, and R. H. Lemelin. 2015. A comparison of
arborists’ and horticulturists’ preferences of Tsuga chinensis to T. canadensis in the
urban landscape. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 41: 41–48.
Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 53–57.
Decker, D. J., T. B. Lauber, and W. F. Siemer. 2002. Human-wildlife conflict management: a
practitioner’s guide. Ithaca, NY: Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and
Outreach Cooperative.
DeGraaf, R. M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and
distribution. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
DeStefano, S., and R. M. DeGraaf. 2003. Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 1: 95–101.
Dodds, K. J., and D. A. Orwig. 2011. An invasive urban forest pest invades natural
environments: Asian longhorned beetle in northeastern US hardwood forests. Canadian
Journal for Research 41: 1729–1742.
12
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
Doroski, D. A., M. S. Ashton, and M. C. Duguid. 2020. The future urban forest – A survey of
tree planting programs in the Northeastern United States. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening 55: 126816.
Dover, V., and J. Massengale. 2014. Street design: The secret to great cities and towns.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dwyer, J. F., E. G. McPherson, H. W. Schroeder, and R. A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the
benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 227–234.
Eisenman, T.S. 2016. Greening cities in an urbanizing age: The human health bases in the
nineteenth and early twenty-first centuries. Change Over Time 6: 216–246.
Elmqvist, T., W. C. Zipperer, and B. Güneralp. 2016. Urbanization, habitat loss, biodiversity
decline: solution pathways to break the cycle. Pages 139–151 in: Seta, K., W. D. Solecki,
and C. A. Griffith, (Eds.), Routledge handbook of urbanization and global environmental
change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Elton, A.J., B.S. Weil and R.W. Harper. 2020. The Worcester tree initiative: A community NGO
at the center of reclaiming an urban forest. Arborist News 29(4): 34-37.
Engels, T. M., and C.W. Sexton. 1994. Negative correlation of blue jays and golden-cheeked
warblers near an urbanizing area. Conservation Biology, 8(1): 286-290.
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2001. Diagnostic protocols
for regulated pests: Ceratocystis fagacearum. EPPO Bulletin 31: 41–44.
Fernandes, C. O., I. M. da Salva, C. P. Teixeira, and L. Costa. 2019. Between tree lovers and tree
haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the
urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 37: 97–108.
Fernández‐Juricic, E. 2000. Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape. Conservation
Biology 14: 513–521.
Foss, L. K., and L. K. Rieske. 2003. Species-specific differences in oak foliage affect preference
and performance of gypsy moth caterpillars. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
108: 87–93.
Gaertner, M., J. R. U. Wilson, M. W. Cadotte, J. S. MacIvor, R. D. Zenni, and D. M. Richardson.
2017. Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and
challenges. Biological Invasions 19: 3461–3469.
Galvin, M. F. 1999. A methodology for assessing and managing biodiversity in street tree
populations: a case study. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 124–128.
Gandhi, K. J. K., and D. A. Herms. 2010. Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on
ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America. Biological
Invasions 12: 389–405.
13
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Gandhi, K. J. K., A. Smith, R. P. Long, R. A. J. Taylor, and D. A. Herms. 2008. Three-year
progression of emerald ash borer-induced decline and mortality in southeastern
Michigan. In: Mastro, V., D. Lance, R. Reardon, and G. Parra (Eds.) Emerald ash borer
research and development meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, 23–24 Oct 2007. USDA Forest
Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV, FHTET-2008-07: 27.
Gilbert, F. F. 1982. Public attitudes toward urban wildlife: a pilot study in Guelph, Ontario.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 10: 245–253.
Goodale, K., G. J. Parsons, and K. Sherren. 2015. The nature of the nuisance—damage or
threat—determines how perceived monetary costs and cultural benefits influence farmer
tolerance of wildlife. Diversity 7: 318–341.
Greco, S. E., and D. A. Airola. 2018. The importance of native valley oaks (Quercus lobata) as
stopover habitat for migratory songbirds in urban Sacramento, California, USA. Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening 29: 303–311.
Grinder, M. I., and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of
coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 887–898.
Haack, R. A., F. Hérard, J. Sun, and J. J. Turgeon. 2010. Managing invasive populations of
Asian longhorned beetle and citrus longhorned beetle: a worldwide perspective. Annual
Review of Entomology 55: 521–546.
Haack, R. A., K. R. Law, V. C. Mastro, H. S. Ossenbruggen, and B. J. Raimo. 1997. New York’s
battle with the Asian long-horned beetle. Journal of Forestry 95: 11–15.
Hadidian, J. 2015. Wildlife in U.S. cities: managing unwanted animals. Animals 5: 1092–1113.
Hall, D. M., G. R. Camilo, R. K. Tonietto, J. Ollerton, K. Ahrné, M. Arduser, J. S. Ascher, K. C.
R. Baldock, R. Fowler, G. Frankie, D. Goulson, B. Gunnarsson, M. E. Hanley, J. I.
Jackson, G. Langellotto, D. Lowenstein, E. S. Minor, S. M. Philpott, S. G. Potts, M. H.
Sirohi, E. M. Spevak, G. N. Stone, and C. G. Threlfall. 2017. The city as a refuge for
insect pollinators. Conservation Biology 31: 24–29.
Hannon, S. J., R. L. Mumme, W. D. Koenig, S. Spon, and F. A. Pitelka. 1987. Poor acorn crop,
dominance, and decline in numbers of acorn woodpeckers. Journal of Animal Ecology
56: 197–207.
Harper, R. W., D. V. Bloniarz, S. DeStefano, and C. R. Nicolson. 2017. Urban forest
management in New England: Towards a contemporary understanding of tree wardens in
Massachusetts communities. Arboricultural Journal 41: 1–19.
Hausmann, S. L., J. S. Petermann, and J. Rolff. 2015. Wild bees as pollinators of city trees.
Insect Conservation and Diversity 9: 97–107.
Heleno, R. H., R. S. Ceia, J. A. Ramos, and J. Memmott. 2009. Effects of alien plants on insect
abundance and biomass: a food-wed approach. Conservation Biology 23: 410–419.
14
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
Hooper, D. U., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M.
Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and
D. A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of
current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35.
Horvath, T., and A. M. Roelans. 1999. Backyard feeders: not entirely for the birds. Anthrozoös
4: 232–236.
Hu, J., S. Angeli, S. Schuetz, Y. Luo, and A. E. Hajek. 2009. Ecology and management of exotic
and endemic Asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis. Agricultural and Forest
Entomology 11: 359–375.
Huang, C., S. C. Kay, S, Davis, D. M. Tufts, K. Gaffett, B. Tefft, and M. A. Diuk-Wasser. 2019.
High burdens of Ixodes scapularis larval ticks on white-tailed deer may limit Lyme
disease risk in a low biodiversity setting. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases 10: 258–268.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed Nov 2018.
Ishigame, G., and G. S. Baxter. 2007. Practice and attitudes of suburban and rural dwellers to
feeding wild birds in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Ornithological Science 6: 11–19.
Iverson, L. R., A. M. Prasad, and S. N. Matthews. 2008a. Modeling potential climate change
impacts on the trees of the northeastern United States. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 13: 487–516.
Iverson, L. R., A. M. Prasad, S. N. Matthews, and M. Peters. 2008b. Estimating potential habitat
for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and
Management 254: 390–406.
Jackson, L. E., E. D. Hilborn, and J. C. Thomas. 2006. Towards landscape design guidelines for
reducing Lyme disease risk. International Journal of Epidemiology 35: 315–322.
Jobe, D. A., J. A. Nelson, M. D. Adam, and S. A. Martin, Jr. 2007. Lyme disease in urban areas,
Chicago. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 1799–1800.
Jones, C. G., R. S. Ostfeld, M. P. Richard, E. M. Schauber, and J. O. Wolff. 1998. Chain
reactions linking acorns to gypsy moth outbreaks and Lyme disease risk. Science 279:
1023–1026.
Jones, D. 2011. An appetite for connection: why we need to understand the effect and value of
feeding wild birds. Emu 111: 1–7.
Juzwik, J., T. C. Harrington, W. L. MacDonald, and D. N. Appel. 2008. The origin of
Ceratocystis fagacearum, the oak wilt fungus. Annual Review of Phytopathology 46: 13–
26.
Kauffman, B. W., and W. K. Clatterbuck. 2006. Forest management strategies to minimize the
impact of gypsy moth. The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, R12-
4910-026-004-06 SP678-1.5M-6/06 06-0331.
15
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Kenis, M., M. Auger-Rozenberg, A. Roques, L. Timms, C. Péré, M. J. M. Cock, J. Settele, S.
Augustin, and C. Lopez-Vaamonde. 2008. Ecological effects of invasive alien insects.
Biological Invasions 11: 21–45.
Kelly, D., W. D. Koenig, and A. M. Liebhold. 2008. An intercontinental comparison of the
dynamic behavior of mast seeding communities. Population Ecology 50: 329–342.
Kilpatrick, H. J., and W. D. Walter. 1997. Urban deer management: a community vote. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 25: 388–391.
Kremen, C., and R. S. Ostfeld. 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing
ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 540–548.
Kretser, H. E., P. D. Curtis, J. D. Francis, R. J. Pendall, and B. A. Knuth. 2009. Factors affecting
perceptions of human-wildlife interactions in residential areas of northern New York and
implications for conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 102–118.
Lance, D. R. 1983. Pages 201–224 in: Ahmad, S (Ed.), Herbivorous insects: host-seeking
behavior and mechanisms. Ney York, NY: Academic Press.
Laurian, L. 2019. Planning for street trees and human–nature relations: Lessons from 600 years
of street tree planting in Paris. Journal of Planning History 18: 282–310.
Logan, W.B. 2005. Oak: The frame of civilization. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2003. Urban oaks and urban oak woodlands. Oaks: 7.
Loo, J. A. 2008. Ecological impacts of non-indigenous invasive fungi as forest pathogens. Pages
81–96 in: Langor, D. W., and J. Sweeney (Eds.), Ecological impacts of non-native
invertebrates and fungi on terrestrial ecosystems. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Lovett, G. M., C. D. Canham, M. A. Arthur, K. C. Weathers, and R. D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Forest
ecosystem responses to exotic pests and pathogens in eastern North America. Bioscience
56: 395–405.
Mahan, C. G., and T. J. O’Connell. 2005. Small mammal use of suburban and urban parks in
central Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 12: 307–314.
Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants: a guide to
wildlife food habits. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
Marzluff, J. M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Pages 19–47 in: Marzluff,
J. M., R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly (Eds.), Avian ecology and conservation in an
urbanizing world. Boston, MA: Springer.
McCullough, D. G., N. F. Schneeberger, S. A. Katovich, and N. W. Siegert. 2015. Pest alert:
Emerald ash borer. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/naspf/publications/pest-alert-emerald-ash-borer-
na-pr-02-04. Accessed Nov 2018.
16
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
McDonald, R. I., P. J. Marcotullio, and B. Güneralp. 2013. Urbanization and global trends in
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Pages 31–52 in: Elmqvist, T. M. Fragkias, J.
Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M.
Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem
services: challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
McDonald, T., G.D. Gann, J. Jonson, and K. W. Dixon. 2016. International standards for the
practice of ecological restoration–including principles and key concepts. Society for
Ecological Restoration: Washington, DC, USA. Soil-Tec, Inc.,© Marcel Huijser,
Bethanie Walder.
McKinney, M. L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation 127: 247–260.
McKinney, M.L., I. Kowarik, and D. Kendal. 2018. The contribution of wild urban ecosystems
to liveable cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 29: 334–335.
McShea, W. J., and G. Schwede. 1993. Variable acorn crops: responses of white-tailed deer and
other mast consumers. Journal of Mammalogy 74: 999–1006.
McShea, W. J., and W.M. Healy. (Eds.) 2002. Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management
for wildlife. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Minor, E., and D. Urban. 2010. Forest bird communities across a gradient of urban development.
Urban Ecosystems 13: 51–71.
Moll, G. 1989. Improving the health of the urban forest. Pages 119–130 in: Moll, G., and S.
Ebenreck (Eds.), Shading our cities: a resource guide for urban and community forests.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mouzon, S. 2016. Street trees are essential for walk appeal. Public Square. Retrieved from
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2016/12/19/street-trees-are-essential-walk-appeal.
Accessed Oct 2020.
Munck, I. 2017. Pest alert: Oak wilt in the northeastern United States. USDA Forest Service,
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/naspf/publications/pest-alert-oak-wilt-northeastern-united-
states-na-pr-02-17. Accessed Nov 2018.
Nielsen, A. B., M. van den Bosch, S. Maruthaveeran, and C. K. van den Bosch. 2014. Species
richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban
Ecosystems 17: 305–327.
Nowak, D. J., and J. F. Dwyer. 2000. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest
ecosystems. Pages 11–25 in: Kuser, J. (Ed.), Urban and community forestry in the
northeast. New York, NY: Kluwer Academia/Plenum Publishers.
Nowak, D. J., E. J. Greenfield, R. E. Hoehn, and E. Lapoint. 2013. Carbon storage and
sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environmental
Pollution 178: 229–213.
17
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Noyce, K. V., and D. L. Garshelis. 2010. Seasonal migrations of black bears (Ursus
americanus): causes and consequences. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 823–
835.
Ordóñez, C., and P. N. Duinker. 2014. Assessing the vulnerability of urban forests to climate
change. Environmental Reviews 22: 311–321.
Organ, J. F., and M. R. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black
bears, beavers, and other beasts in the East. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 63–75.
Ostfeld, R. S., F. Keesing, C. G. Jones, C. D. Canham, and G. M. Lovett. 1998. Integrative
ecology and the dynamics of species in oak forests. Integrative Biology 1: 178–186.
Ostfeld, R. S., C. G. Jones, and J. O. Wolff. 1996. Of mice and mast: ecological connections in
eastern deciduous forests. BioScience 46: 323–330.
Peper, P. J., E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson, S. L. Gardner, K. E. Vargas, and Q. Xiao. 2007.
New York City, New York Municipal Forest Resource Analysis. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, Center for Urban Forest Research. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/45969. Accessed Oct 2020.
Poland, T. M., and D. G. McCullough. 2006. Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and
the threat to North America’s ash resource. Journal of Forestry (April/May) 2006: 118–
124.
Quinn, T. 2016. Asian longhorned beetle still in Worcester. Worcester Magazine. Retrieved from
https://worcestermag.com/2016/04/07/asian-longhorned-beetle-still-worcester/41738.
Accessed Nov 2018.
Raupp, M. J., A. B. Cumming, and E. C. Raupp. 2006. Street tree diversity in eastern North
America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry
32: 297–304.
Rexrode, C. O., and D. Brown. 1983. Forest insect and disease leaflet 29: Oak wilt. USDA
Forest Service. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/fidls/index.shtml. Accessed Nov 2018.
Rosenberg, R., N. P. Lindsey, M. Fischer, C. J. Gregory, A. F. Hinckley, P. S. Mead, G. Paz-
Bailey, S. H. Waterman, N. A. Drexler, G. J. Kersh, H. Hooks, S. K. Partridge, S. N.
Visser, C. B. Beard, and L. R. Petersen. 2018. Vital signs: Trends in reported vectorborne
disease cases — United States and Territories, 2004–2016. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 67: 496–501.
Ryan, H. D. P., and D. V. Bloniarz. 2008. Selecting street tree species and planting locations.
HortNotes 19: 1–3.
Santamour, F. S. 1990. Trees for urban planting: diversity, uniformity, and common sense. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance
(METRIA), The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, 8-10 Apr 1997. METRIA: 57–65.
18
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103
Schlarbaum, S. E., F. Hebard, P. C. Spaine, and J. C. Kamalay. 1998. Three American tragedies:
Chestnut blight, butternut canker, and Dutch elm disease. In: Britton, K. O. (Ed.), Exotic
pests of eastern forests conference proceedings, Nashville, TN, 8-10 Apr 1997. USDA
Forest Service and TN Exotic Pest Plant Council: 45–54.
Seamans, G. S. 2013. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening 12: 2–11.
Searle, S. Y., M. H. Turnbull, N. T. Boelman, W. S. F. Schuster, D. Yakir, and K. L. Griffin.
2012. Urban environment of New York City promotes growth in northern red oak
seedlings. Tree Physiology 32: 389–400.
Shatz, A. J., J. Rogan, F. Sangermano, Y. Ogneva-Himmelberger, and H. Chen. 2013.
Characterizing the potential distribution of the invasive Asian longhorned beetle
(Anoplophora glabripennis) in Worcester County, Massachusetts. Applied Geography
45: 259–268.
Shaw, W. W., W. R. Mangun, and J. R. Lyons. 1985. Residential enjoyment of wildlife resources
by Americans. Leisure Sciences 7: 361–375.
Shochat, E., S. B. Lerman, J. M. Anderies, P. S. Warren, S. H. Faeth, and C. H. Nilon. 2010.
Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScience 60: 199–
208.
Somme, L., L. Moquet, M. Quinet, M. Vanderplanck, D. Michez, G. Lognay, and A. Jacquemart.
2016. Food in a row: urban trees offer valuable floral resources to pollinating insects.
Urban Ecosystems 19: 1149–1161.
Sonti, N. F., R. A. Hallett, K. L. Griffin, and J. H. Sullivan. 2019. White oak and red maple tree
ring analysis reveals enhanced productivity in urban forest patches. Forest Ecology and
Management 453: 117626.
Southon, G. E., A. Jorgensen, N. Dunnett, H. Hoyle, and K. L. Evans. 2017. Biodiverse perennial
meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban
green-space. Landscape and Urban Planning 158: 105–118.
Southon, G. E., A. Jorgensen, N. Dunnett, H. Hoyle, and K. L. Evans. 2018. Perceived species-
richness in urban green spaces: cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landscape and
Urban Planning 172: 1–10.
Swingle, R. U., R. R. Whitten, and E. G. Brewer. 1949. Dutch elm disease. Pages 451–452 in:
Trees, the Yearbook of Agriculture. USDA, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Washington, DC.
Tallamy, D. W. 2009. Bringing nature home: how you can sustain wildlife with native plants.
Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Tallamy, D. W., and K. J. Shropshire. 2009. Ranking Lepidopteran use of native versus
introduced plants. Conservation Biology 23: 941–947.
19
Bocsi et al.: Urban Oak Trees
Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2021
Tietje, W., K. Purcell, and S. Drill. 2005. Oak woodlands as wildlife habitat. In: Giusti, G. A.,
McCreary, D. D., and Standiford, R. B. (Eds.) A planner’s guide for oak woodlands,
second edition. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Publication 3491.
Timm, R. M., and R. O Baker. 2007. A history of urban coyote problems. In: Nolte, D. L., W. M.
Arjo, and D. H. Stalman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Damage Management
Conference, Corpus Christi, TX, 9-12 Apr 2007. National Wildlife Research Center:
272–286.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census Urban Area Facts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafacts.html. Accessed Nov 2018.
VanAcker, M. C., E.A.H Little, G. Molaei, W. I. Bajwa, and M.A. Diuk-Wasser. 2019.
Enhancement of risk for Lyme disease by landscape connectivity, New York, New York,
USA. Emerging Infectious Diseases 25: 1136–1143.
Van Dersal, W. R. 1940. Utilization of oaks by birds and mammals. Journal of Wildlife
Management 4: 404–428.
Vose, J. M., D. L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and
change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest
sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/all/42610.
Wauters, L. A., G. Tosi, and J. Gurnell. 2002. Interspecific competition in tree squirrels: do
introduced grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) deplete tree seeds hoarded by red
squirrels (S. vulgaris)? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 360–367.
Williams, M. I., and R. K. Dumroese. 2013. Preparing for climate change: Forestry and assisted
migration. Journal of Forestry 111: 287–297.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna. Ecological
Applications 30: e02149.
Yang, J. 2009. Assessing the impact of climate change on urban tree species selection: A case
study in Philadelphia. Journal of Forestry 107: 364–372.
20
Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 14 [2021], Iss. 1, Art. 3
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol14/iss1/3DOI: 10.15365/cate.2021.140103